How to win a campaign

Reposted topic from Playskewls http://forums.battlegroundeurope.com/showthread.php?t=164521

S! Officers and Playerbase

How to win a campaign? I've seen lots of suggestions in many posts recently. From weapon models, Axis exploiting the brigade movement issues, and player base preferences. But none have even mentioned the most significant factor in success. One concept that seems to be completely overlooked by both sides.
Organization. This one concept far outweighs any of the other "suggestions." It is completely controllable by the player base and HC. It can compensate for any imbalances. Without it you can have no hope of winning.
WWII Online rewards organization. It says so as you log on. But how do you get organized? More meetings? Firing individual HC? CRS mandates? Posts on PS?
I'll let everyone decide how to do it, what I'm going to discuss is what is needed in the end of the process of getting organized.
1. Effective Leadership
I originally wrote only "Leadership" but too many of us don’t understand "leadership" from "effective leadership." What does it take to be an effective leader. First you need to have 1 guy in charge. If you are trying to run an army by committee you are doomed. You will try to accomplish 3 different good plans, and fail at all of them. Without a central focus, you lose, NOTHING else you do will matter.
One OIC runs the Army. But that doesn’t mean there isn't a bunch of officers helping them out and particpating on the decison process. One OIC can not do it all by themselves. He must get his officers and player base to work in unison. WWII Online requires an army to choose a target, prepare for the AO, and finish off the town. There are a critical number of players that must be attacking to be successful. If you can not direct your squads and players to work with each other on one goal then your operations will fail.
How do you get your squads and players to work together. First you need one set of goals. The goal needs to be a smart one. If a large minority of the player base think the idea is stupid, they won't show up and your operation will fail (Note - I said "Minority" If you don't get FULL player base support you are severly handicapped). The OIC needs to be respected and liked, if not, the squads and the player base won't show up. Unlike a real army you cannot order anyone to do anything. There is no penalty the HC can enforce to make players guard a table. You must make the squads and players WANT to follow your direction. If your plan is perceived dumb or no one likes you, shout all you want, but no one is coming to help.
If the OIC is not respected for their ideas and liked for the person they are, they cannot be effective leaders. Notice - that there is no mention of Rank in this statement. Rank gives you none of these traits.
Young officers may have the traits necessary to be great OIC's, but because no one knows them, no one respects them. In time, as they string small victories together, they will be able to lead the Army, but for now they may feel very frustrated.
2.) Cooperation between armies and branches
In the "Effective Leadership" section I talked about cooperation among an army. This section is about cooperation among branches.
So every branch on your side now has effective leadership, so why are you not winning? If the branches do not work together your ability to be successful is severely handicapped. Most AO's and DO's require the Airforce and Army to coordinate. If your fighting in the Zeelands you need the Navy as well. Coordination between the branches can be automatic. The Army Attacks, this attracts ground targets for the Bombers to destroy, which attracts Fighters to shoot them down. No large amount of coordination is necessary, everyone shows up because they want to be where the action is.
The cooperation that really matters is the 2 different Armies cooperating with each other. The Majority of the Player Base and Officers belongs to the most important branch, the Armies. The Armies capture towns, hold depots, resupply tanks. There ability to be successful and ONLY their ability determines who wins a campaign.
How does an Army be successful? Two concepts - Infrastructure and Players.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure is what is needed to make an AO succeed. MS need to be setup, HTs need to tow ATGs, Tank Columns need to be formed for resupply and then lead into battle, and the lonely job of interdiction. Squads and Officers provide the Infrastructure. The General player base doesn’t care about these important tasks, they just want to shoot things and almost never help out. So you have a limited number of players who will provide these services, the more on an Attack, the greater your chance of success. Not enough on an Attack, you'll end up with no MSs and flanked by Tanks from nearby cities.
Players
The numbers matter. The more the better. No Brainer here.
Each army "owns" these resources and can choose to use them on their sector or help the other army. How often have you seen one side attacking with the Majority of their forces on ONE Uber Important target, and the other side has half its forces defending the town and the other half fighting some unimportant battle elsewhere? How often have you seen each army attacking towns in their own sector, but neither has enough resources to achieve victory so both armies have failed Attacks over and over?
When BOTH armies cooperate and give squads, officers, and players for joint operations, that side can easily destroy another side that chooses not to invest their resources where it matters most.
3.) "Winning is Contagious"
A quote from my favorite sports coach. It is simple human nature. Sports teams that win have lots of fans, sports teams that lose have very few. Sports teams that win have more money, get better players, win more, get more money, get better players, ect… Sports teams that lose have no money, no money to get better players, and lose. Once your are a loser its hard to become a winner. Once you’re a winner, it is much easier to stay there.
You don't need to win campaigns to be considered a winner. You can win individual battles, do a single great strategic move, coordinate one large operation. You can even "win" if you fail to achieve your objective. Win a few times and you'll get some player support. You then can win more attracting more player support. After a few winning battles you have a real army that is excited to serve.
WWII Online players like to be lead by winners (who wants to follow a loser??) Even the ones who are loyal to a specific side want to win. Winning is fun. Fun means more players log in and for longer. More players means easier to win. Winning is fun.
How do you win?? Look at #1 and #2. Don't look at equipment or technicalities that favor one side or the other only slightly. If you don't have Organization you will lose regardless of any CRS handout you get.
So what is the problem??
If you see a lot of arguments on chat about what target is next or where should these divisions move to, you are probably missing elements in #1.
If you see instances where player X says "I won't fight South of town Y" you are probably having a problem with #2.
If your player base no longer cares, Look no further than #3.

MrToad
OKW - 6A XO